The narrative around the immersive sim genre has always carried a peculiar tension. On one hand, these games\u2014Deus Ex, BioShock, Thief, Dishonored\u2014are cited with a reverence usually reserved for canonized art. On the other, a persistent industry whisper insists that the immersive sim is a commercial dead end, too complex, too niche, and too expensive to sustain at a triple-A level. August has become an unexpected crucible for this debate. Within weeks, a co-creator of Thief argued that triple-A immersive sim development \u201cdoesn’t really work,\u201d and then Harvey Smith, the director of Dishonored, announced a new studio entirely dedicated to the genre. Now, Smith, alongside his fellow leads Ben Horne and Ricardo Bare, has directly confronted the core question: are immersive sims actually dead, or has the industry simply talked itself into believing they are?<\/p>\n
Speaking to The Game<\/a> Business, Smith met the question of the<\/a> genre\u2019s viability with a counter-question that cuts to the heart of how the industry conditions itself. \u201cAt some point you\u2019re worried\u2026 do questions like that create a self-fulfilling prophecy?\u201d He is not dismissing the commercial challenges. He is instead pointing out that the very act of repeatedly declaring a genre unviable can starve it of the investment, risk-taking, and marketing support necessary for it to succeed. \u201cIf you look back through those games, there are a lot of titles that people still talk about 10 or 20 years later<\/a>,\u201d Smith argued. \u201cThey have a lot of cultural cachet. And there are a few, if you look at BioShock or Deus Ex or Dishonored, that make a lot of money.\u201d<\/p>\n This framing is critical. Smith is not claiming every immersive sim is a blockbuster. He is challenging the assumption that commercial mediocrity is inherent to the genre rather than a function of specific market conditions, budget sizes, or design compromises. The conversation about immersive sims has long been dominated by the idea that they are fundamentally uncommercial. Smith\u2019s rebuttal reintroduces historical nuance: several of the genre\u2019s defining entries were, by any reasonable standard, financial successes.<\/p>\n The mechanism Smith describes operates on a few levels. First, there is the matter of publisher confidence. If executives believe that first-person, systems-driven games with branching narratives are a bad bet, they will allocate smaller budgets, impose stricter creative constraints, and demand features that dilute the core experience\u2014such as shoehorning in multiplayer modes or simplifying systems to reach a broader audience. Second, there is the issue of developer morale and recruitment. Talented creators who love immersive sims may hesitate to join a project that is publicly framed as a losing proposition from the start. Third, there is the audience side: if the dominant industry story is that immersive sims are dead, new players may not even seek them out.<\/p>\n Smith\u2019s experience is instructive here. He recalled hearing extremely well-compensated executives make confident predictions that turned out to be false. \u201cVery well-paid people say things to me, going way back now, like, \u2018First-person games don\u2019t sell,\u2019 or, \u2018RPGs are a niche market,\u2019 \u2018If you\u2019re not working on a free-to-play game now, in five years you\u2019ll be out of a job,\u2019 \u2018MMOs are the future,\u2019 \u2018In the future, games will have live motion video sections with Hollywood actors in them.\u2019\u201d Some of these predictions were spectacularly wrong. \u201cFirst-person games don\u2019t sell\u201d is a laughable statement in an era where Call of Duty, Destiny, and Overwatch have defined the mainstream. But Smith noted that some predictions\u2014specifically the one about Hollywood actors in games\u2014proved prescient. His point is that industry conventional wisdom is often a reflection of current trends, not a reliable guide to the future.<\/p>\n Ben Horne, also speaking to The Game Business, offered a complementary perspective that grounds the new studio\u2019s philosophy in pragmatism. \u201cWe don\u2019t really know what turn the industry might take, and we\u2019re probably not going to be very good at trend chasing,\u201d Horne said. This is a surprisingly honest admission from a veteran developer. The video game industry is notoriously fickle, and attempting to forecast the next big thing\u2014battle royale, live service, open-world crafting, extraction shooters\u2014is a gamble that has burned many studios.<\/p>\n Horne\u2019s alternative is to double down on what the team knows and loves. \u201cOur best shot is to rally around a creative vision that excites us as developers. It excites the audience that we know wants to play this kind-of game. That\u2019s the best chance of making something great.\u201d This approach is not naive. It acknowledges the commercial reality that immersive sims have a dedicated, passionate audience. That audience may be smaller than the market for a mainstream shooter, but it is also more loyal, more engaged, and more likely to evangelize a game that respects its intelligence. The strategy is not to compete for the entire market but to dominate a specific, defensible niche.<\/p>\n The practical challenge is scale. The Astounding success of games like Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 has demonstrated that deep, systems-driven, choice-heavy games can achieve enormous commercial success. But Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 is a massive project with a long development cycle. The immersive sim genre, by contrast, has often been associated with mid-tier or triple-A budgets that required high sales volumes to break even. Smith, Horne, and Bare are tacitly acknowledging that the way forward may not be to try to replicate the budget and scope of a blockbuster but to design at a scale that matches the genre\u2019s natural audience.<\/p>\n This is where the observation from the original Thief designer becomes relevant: triple-A immersive sims may not work because the cost of production outpaces the addressable market. But a smaller, more focused immersive sim\u2014one that prioritizes systemic depth over graphical fidelity or sprawling map size\u2014could be eminently viable. The passionate reception of games like Gloomwood, a self-described immersive sim in the tradition of Thief, demonstrates that a hungry audience exists for well-crafted, smaller-scale experiences in this vein.<\/p>\n To understand the persistence of this genre\u2014and the industry hand-wringing around it\u2014it helps to define what an immersive sim actually is. The term typically refers to a game that emphasizes player agency through a set of interconnected systems. Instead of scripted sequences with one solution, an immersive sim presents a problem\u2014a locked door, a guarded room, a target to eliminate\u2014and offers multiple approaches. Stealth, combat, hacking, persuasion, environment manipulation, and emergent physics all serve as tools the player can combine in creative ways. The \u201cimmersive\u201d part refers to the feeling of being inside a consistent, reactive world rather than a series of linear challenges.<\/p>\n Classic examples include the Looking Glass Studios titles\u2014Thief, System Shock 2\u2014and their spiritual successors: Deus Ex, BioShock, Dishonored, Prey (2017), and the more recent Weird West. These games share a design philosophy that prioritizes player expression. They are often first-person, though not always. They tend to feature dense, interconnected level design rather than wide-open spaces. They reward exploration, observation, and lateral thinking. They also, historically, require significant investment from the player\u2014both in time and cognitive effort\u2014which can be a barrier in a market increasingly dominated by frictionless, instantly gratifying experiences.<\/p>\n Smith\u2019s recollection of poor predictions from \u201cvery well-paid people\u201d is more than just anecdotal color. It reflects a persistent pattern in the video game industry where executives, analysts, and even prominent developers mistake a current trend for a permanent shift. The rush to free-to-play in the mid-2010s is one example. The belief that single-player games were dying after the success of multiplayer-focused titles like Fortnite is another. The assumption that first-person games could not sell outside of the shooter genre has been repeatedly disproven by games like Portal, The Stanley Parable, and indeed Dishonored itself.<\/p>\n The Hollywood actor prediction is a fascinating counterpoint. Smith acknowledged that executives were right about that one. The proliferation of celebrity voice actors and likeness rights in major releases\u2014from Keanu Reeves in Cyberpunk 2077 to Pedro Pascal in the upcoming The Last of Us game\u2014validates that particular insight. The lesson is not that industry executives are always wrong. It is that they are often wrong, and their confidence frequently exceeds their accuracy. Basing long-term creative strategy on the hunches of people who are incentivized to avoid risk is a recipe for a homogenized, trend-chasing industry.<\/p>\n Part of the problem is that immersive sims are difficult to market. They do not have a single, easily communicable hook. A game like God of War can be sold on its cinematic spectacle and emotional story. A game like Call of Duty can be sold on its competitive multiplayer and visceral action. An immersive sim requires explaining the systemic interactions, the freedom of approach, and the emergent possibilities\u2014all of which are abstract and hard to convey in a 30-second trailer. Players often discover the depth of an immersive sim only after they play it, which means word-of-mouth is critical. If the initial sales are weak because the marketing struggled to communicate the value proposition, the game is quickly written off as a commercial failure, reinforcing the narrative that the genre does not work.<\/p>\n This is the self-fulfilling prophecy in action. A game like Prey (2017) was critically acclaimed and developed a passionate cult following, but its sales were considered disappointing relative to its budget. The conclusion many drew was that \u201cimmersive sims don\u2019t sell.\u201d An alternative reading is that Prey\u2019s marketing failed to capture what made it special, and its name\u2014shared with a completely different earlier game\u2014created confusion. The game itself was a masterpiece of systemic design. The commercial outcome was a function of context, not genre.<\/p>\n The decision by Smith, Horne, and Bare to found a new studio dedicated entirely to immersive sims is therefore a high-stakes test of these competing theories. If they can deliver a commercially successful game that honors the genre\u2019s traditions while reaching a sufficiently large audience, it would deal a serious blow to the narrative that immersive sims are unviable. If they fail, it will be taken as further evidence by the industry that the genre is indeed a dead end.<\/p>\n The studio is not starting from zero. Smith directed Dishonored and worked on Deus Ex. Horne and Bare are Arkane veterans with deep experience in systemic game design. They are not novices trying to revive a forgotten genre; they are among the foremost living practitioners of it. Their credibility is a significant asset. When they speak about the genre\u2019s potential, it carries weight. When they commit their careers to it, it signals confidence. The question is whether confidence, talent, and a niche audience are enough to build a sustainable business in an industry that increasingly consolidates around a few blockbuster franchises.<\/p>\n The indie space offers a useful data point. Gloomwood, developed by New Blood Interactive, is an overt homage to the original Thief games. It is early access, relatively low-budget, and visually retro. Yet it has attracted a devoted following precisely because it understands what made the classic immersive sims work: dense levels, sound-based stealth, resource scarcity, and a world that reacts to player choices. Gloomwood does not have Hollywood actors. It does not have cutting-edge graphics. It does not have a massive marketing budget. What it has is design purity and a clear understanding of its audience.<\/p>\n Similarly, games like Shadows of Doubt, a noir cyberpunk immersive sim about detective work in procedurally generated cities, and even the surprise hit Kingdom Come: Deliverance\u2014which shares some of the immersive sim\u2019s values of systemic interaction and player agency\u2014suggest that the appetite for this style of game has never disappeared. It has simply shifted to platforms where smaller budgets make the financial math work.<\/p>\n It is plausible that the immersive sim\u2019s future is not at the triple-A tier but at the mid-tier or indie level. Just as the point-and-click adventure genre, once a triple-A staple, retreated to a smaller but sustainable niche after its commercial heyday, the immersive sim may find its home in games that cost a fraction of a Dishonored or Prey to produce. This would not be a death. It would be a transformation. The genre\u2019s core ideas\u2014systemic design, player agency, immersive worlds\u2014would live on, but they would be delivered in packages that are better matched to their natural audience size.<\/p>\nWhat Is the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy at Work?<\/h3>\n
The Strategy of Creative Focus Over Trend Chasing<\/h2>\n
How Does This Strategy Address the Financial Risks of Immersive Sims?<\/h3>\n
What Are the Defining Characteristics of an Immersive Sim?<\/h2>\n
The Industry\u2019s Historical Misreading of Market Trends<\/h2>\n
Why Does the Immersive Sim Genre Struggle with Perception?<\/h3>\n
Harvey Smith\u2019s New Studio: A Practical Experiment in the Genre\u2019s Viability<\/h2>\n
What the Success of Gloomwood and Other Indie Immersive Sims Suggests<\/h2>\n
Is the Future of the Immersive Sim Small-Scale and Digital-Only?<\/h3>\n